Monarch’s Capitol Hill address exposes colonial-era power dynamics amid US-UK diplomatic strain

Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems universally reject hereditary monarchy as a legitimate governance model, viewing it as a relic of feudalism and colonialism that perpetuates dispossession. In Aotearoa (New Zealand), Māori leaders have long argued that the British Crown’s continued role in governance violates the Treaty of Waitangi, which promised partnership and protection. Similarly, in Africa, pre-colonial governance structures—such as the Ubuntu philosophy or the Ashanti Confederacy—offer models of leadership based on consensus and service, starkly contrasting with the hereditary, unaccountable nature of monarchy. These perspectives highlight how the monarch’s speech is not a neutral act but a reinforcement of a system that has historically silenced Indigenous self-determination.

The US-UK ‘special relationship’ is a 20th-century construct built on shared colonial ambitions, not a timeless alliance. The 1941 Atlantic Charter—often cited as its foundation—was drafted by Roosevelt and Churchill to preserve Western hegemony, not to foster equality. Historical precedents like the 1956 Suez Crisis reveal how this ‘relationship’ operates: the US and UK colluded to invade Egypt, only for the US to later betray the UK, exposing the fragility of their partnership. The current tensions over trade or geopolitical alignment echo these patterns, where ‘friendship’ is a veneer for strategic competition and economic leverage.

Cross-culturally, the idea of a hereditary monarch as a unifying figure is increasingly contested, particularly in societies that have experienced colonial rule. In India, the 1947 transfer of power from the British Crown to local elites did not end the symbolic violence of monarchy, as seen in the continued glorification of colonial-era institutions. In the Pacific, leaders like Fiji’s Sitiveni Rabuka have rejected the monarchy outright, framing it as incompatible with modern democratic values. Even in Europe, movements like Spain’s republicanism challenge the legitimacy of monarchies, arguing they are vestiges of authoritarianism that obstruct progress toward egalitarian governance.

From a systems theory perspective, the ‘special relationship’ functions as a feedback loop that reinforces power asymmetries in global governance. Research on elite networks (e.g., the Council on Foreign Relations or Chatham House) shows how these institutions perpetuate a ‘transatlantic elite’ that prioritizes Western interests in trade, security, and cultural policy. The monarch’s speech is a performative act that activates this loop, signaling continuity in a system where diplomatic rituals mask material inequalities. Quantitative analyses of voting patterns in the UN General Assembly further reveal that the US and UK consistently align against the Global South, contradicting the narrative of a ‘shared values’ alliance.

Artistic and spiritual traditions across cultures have long critiqued the deification of power embodied by monarchies. In African traditions, the concept of ‘ubuntu’—‘I am because we are’—contrasts sharply with the individualism and hierarchy of monarchy. In Hindu philosophy, the idea of ‘Raja Dharma’ (duty of the ruler) emphasizes service and moral accountability, a far cry from the unaccountable authority of a hereditary monarch. Western art, from Shakespeare’s *Richard II* to Banksy’s modern critiques, has similarly exposed the absurdity and cruelty of monarchical rule, framing it as a system that corrupts both ruler and ruled.

If current trends continue, the US-UK alliance will likely deepen its neocolonial character, with symbolic gestures (like royal speeches) masking the extraction of resources and labor from the Global South. Scenario modeling suggests that rising Global South coalitions (e.g., BRICS+) could challenge this dynamic by demanding reparations, debt cancellation, and the dismantling of institutions like the Commonwealth. Alternatively, a collapse of the monarchy in the UK—accelerated by scandals or republican movements—could force a reckoning with colonial legacies, potentially reshaping the alliance into a more equitable partnership based on mutual accountability rather than historical domination.

Marginalized voices—particularly from former colonies—have consistently exposed the violence of the US-UK ‘special relationship.’ Leaders like Antigua and Barbuda’s Gaston Browne have linked reparations to diplomatic leverage, arguing that the monarchy’s presence on Capitol Hill is a reminder of unpaid debts. In the Caribbean, activists like David Comissiong have framed the monarchy as a ‘living monument to slavery,’ demanding its removal as a prerequisite for true independence. Indigenous groups in the Americas, such as the Lakota Sioux, have also highlighted how the US-UK alliance historically enabled the displacement of their peoples, linking past atrocities to present-day policies like militarized borders or resource extraction.